`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and
`TD AMERITRADE ONLINE HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2014-00133
`Patent 7,676,411
`____________________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Claim 1 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..................................... 1 
`
`A. 
`
`The claims are directed to the abstract idea of placing an order based
`on observed market information, as well as updating market
`information (Step 1) .............................................................................. 3 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`TT cannot avoid the abstract idea by arguing its claims recite a
`GUI improvement ....................................................................... 4 
`
`TT’s claims use many words, but recite little substance ............ 5 
`
`Claim 1 did not solve any GUI problems ................................... 8 
`
`Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite only insignificant post-
`solution activity and data gathering (Step 2) ....................................... 10 
`
`The claims preempt the abstract idea despite any alleged non-
`infringing alternatives ......................................................................... 12 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D.  Overcoming computer problems does not necessarily confer patent
`eligibility ............................................................................................. 14 
`
`E. 
`
`TT’s reliance on the CQG case is misplaced ...................................... 17 
`
`III.  Dependent claims 4, 9, and 10 are not patent-eligible .................................. 19 
`
`IV.  The Board has jurisdiction over this proceeding ........................................... 20 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The CBM statute does not exempt all GUIs from CBM review ......... 20 
`
`Claim 1 recites a method for performing data processing used in the
`practice of a financial product or service ............................................ 23 
`
`C. 
`
`Claim 1 does not fall into the technological invention exception ....... 23 
`
`1. 
`
`Claim 1 does not recite a novel and nonobvious technological
`feature ........................................................................................ 23 
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`Claim 1 is not directed to a technological invention solving a
`technical problem ...................................................................... 24 
`
`2. 
`
`V. 
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 25 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases 
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................ passim
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 16
`
`Bloomberg v. Markets-Alert,
`CBM2013-00005, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2015) ................................. 21
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................4, 7
`
`DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 15, 16
`
`Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc.,
`545 U.S. 546 (2005)....................................................................................... 21
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co.,
`2014 WL 7215193 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014) .................................................. 17
`
`Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Financial Corp.,
`2014 WL 1513273 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2014) ................................................ 17
`
`Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs.,
`132 S.Ct. 740 (2012) ...................................................................................... 22
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
`2014 WL 7185921 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) .............................................. 17
`
`Smartflash, LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., et al.,
`No. 6:13-cv-447-JRG-KNM (E.D. TX. January 21, 2015) ........................... 17
`
`Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., et al.,
`No. 1:05-04811 (N.D. Ill Apr. 15, 2015) .......................................... 14, 17, 18
`
`Xianli Zhang v. United States,
`640 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Statutes 
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................. 1, 6, 8
`
`
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360.............................................................................................. 22
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5402................................................................................. 21, 22, 23
`
`79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014) ........................................................................ 13
`
`AIA § 18 ................................................................................................................... 20
`
`AIA § 18(d)(1) .................................................................................................. 21, 23
`
`AIA § 18(d)(2) ......................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a) ............................................................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ....................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exh. No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,411 to Kemp, II et al. (“’411 patent”)
`File History of Application Ser. No. 11/585,907, which became the
`’411 patent, as filed and obtained from PAIR (“’411 Patent File
`History”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,077,665 to Silverman et al. (“Silverman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,031 to Gutterman et al. (“Gutterman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,375,055 to Togher et al. (“Togher”)
`“Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading Terminal Operation
`Guide,” Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE JP”)
`Certified Translation of “Futures/Option Purchasing System Trading
`Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE”)
`Certificate of Translation for “Futures/Option Purchasing System
`Trading Terminal Operation Guide” (“TSE Certificate”)
`Memorandum from James M. Hilmert to eSpeed file regarding
`direct examination of TSE’s 30(b)(6) witness, dated December 5,
`2005 (“Depo. Letter”)
`Deposition Transcript of Atsushi Kawashima, Trading Technologies
`International, Inc., v. eSPEED, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-5312, United
`States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
`dated November 21, 2005 (“Depo. Transcript”)
`Petition to Make Special Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.102(d) for Ser. No.
`09/590,692, filed August 21, 2000 (“Petition to Make Special”)
`Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132, Control
`No. 90/011,250, filed September 22, 2010 (“Reexam Request”)
`Order Denying Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`6,772,132, Control No. 90/011,250, mailed December 14, 2010
`(“Order Denying Reexam”)
`Alan Cooper, “About Face: The Essentials of User Interface
`Design,” First Edition, 1995. (“Cooper”)
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`Ben Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface: Strategies for
`Effective Human-Computer Interaction,” Third Edition, 1998
`(“Shneiderman”)
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 2002, page 150
`(“Microsoft Computer Dictionary”)
`Robert Deel, “The Strategic Electronic Day Trader,” 2000 (“Deel”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,263,134 to Paal et al. (“Paal”)
`Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Román Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Kendyl A. Román (“Román CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by Kendyl A. Román (“Román List of
`Materials”)
` “Calculus with Analytic Geometry," 2nd Edition, by Howard
`Anton, John Wiley & Sons, 1984 (“Calculus”)
`Declaration of David Rho (“Rho Decl.”)
`Curriculum Vitae of David Rho (“Rho CV”)
`List of Materials Considered by David Rho (“Rho List of
`Materials”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,408,282 to Buist (“Buist”)
`Supplemental Declaration of Kendyl A. Román (“Suppl. Román
`Decl.”)
`TT’s Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on
`Indirect Infringement or Alternatively For New Trial Pursuant to
`Rule 59, Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., et
`al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04811 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 15, 2015) (“TT Mot. for
`JMOL of Indirect Infringement”)
`“Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. 1, Feb. 15, 2015” (Exhibit A)
`accompanying TT’s Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of
`Law on Indirect Infringement or Alternatively For New Trial
`Pursuant to Rule 59, Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
`CQG, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04811 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 15, 2015)
`(“CQG Tr.”)
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`TT’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Concerning PHE and
`Infringement Under the DOE and For a New Trial, Trading
`Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-
`cv-04811 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 15, 2015) (“TT’s Motion for JMOL”)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, April 28, 2015
`(“Thomas Tr.”)
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 at S1364 (Mar. 8, 2011)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Christopher Thomas, August 14,
`2007, Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. eSpeed
`International, Ltd., et al., No. 04-cv-05312 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2007)
`(originally served [but not filed] by Patent Owner as “TRADING
`TECH EXHIBIT 2266”) (“Thomas eSpeed Tr.”)
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`
`The Board should find all claims ineligible for patenting. Trading
`
`Technologies International’s (“TT”) claims recite the abstract idea of placing an
`
`order based on observed market information, as well as updating market
`
`information, and nothing more than the well understood, routine, and conventional
`
`activities of receiving data, displaying it with a computer, and accepting a user’s
`
`order and sending it to the exchange.
`
`TT argues that its claims are eligible for patenting (and not eligible for this
`
`proceeding) because they recite an improved GUI that solved a computer problem.1
`
`But as TD Ameritrade demonstrates, TT’s evidence-free arguments are wrong on
`
`the law and the facts.
`
`II. Claim 1 is not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`After TD Ameritrade filed its Petition, the Supreme Court established a two-
`
`step test for determining patent eligibility of abstract ideas, consistent with its prior
`
`Mayo decision. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). The
`
`
`1 TT treats claim 1 as a representative claim, devoting only two sentences to
`
`any other claims. POR at 19 (discussing dependent claims 4, 9, and 10). All claims
`
`therefore stand or fall with claim 1, with the exception of claims 4, 9, and 10,
`
`which TD Ameritrade addresses herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`Court did not “delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category.” Id. at
`
`
`
`2357. Rather, it set forth a broad framework for determining whether a claim was
`
`directed to an abstract idea. The Alice test has now been applied countless times by
`
`the Courts and the Office.
`
`Step one asks whether the patent is directed to one of the three judicial
`
`exceptions to patentable subject matter: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`
`abstract ideas. Id. at 2354-55. The abstract idea category “embodies ‘the
`
`longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable.’” Id. at 2355 (quoting
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
`
`Step two asks whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as
`
`an ordered combination, recite any significant limitation or “inventive concept”
`
`transforming the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2357. A claim must do more than merely state the abstract idea and add the words
`
`“apply it.” Id. It must recite “additional features” to ensure that it is “more than a
`
`drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].” Id. And those
`
`“additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional
`
`activity.” Mayo Collab. Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012).
`
`Application of the Alice two-step test here leads to one conclusion: TT’s
`
`claims are not eligible for patent protection. Claim 1 merely instructs a practitioner
`
`to implement the abstract idea of observing plotted (and updated) market
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`information and placing an order based on that information. And merely
`
`
`
`implementing that abstract idea using well known components (a generic
`
`computer), limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use (trading financial
`
`products), or adding insignificant extra-solution activities (data gathering, sending
`
`orders, and arranging data), “add[s] nothing of practical significance to the
`
`underlying abstract idea.” Ultramercial v. Hulu, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). In short, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible
`
`subject matter.
`
`A. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of placing an order
`based on observed market information, as well as updating
`market information (Step 1)
`
`As the Board correctly found, claim 1 is directed to the unpatentable abstract
`
`idea of plotting and updating market data, and placing an order based on that data.
`
`Inst. Dec. at 14; Pet. at 11-15. Claim 1 “requires the display of certain information
`
`in a certain arrangement on a GUI and allows for the placing of an order based on
`
`the information.” Inst. Dec. at 14. Specifically, it recites receiving market data,
`
`plotting it, updating the plot when the data changes, and entering an order by
`
`selecting a desired price. The recited combination of steps are an abstraction
`
`having no particular form. Some of the steps recite “a degree of particularity,” such
`
`as requiring single-action order entry, but this does not rescue the claim as a whole
`
`from abstractness. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`Aside from the recitation of conventional and generic computer terms and
`
`
`
`processes, such as a “computing device” and sending an order to an “electronic
`
`exchange,” claim 1 could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen-
`
`and-paper with little difficulty because the claim requires plotting only two data
`
`points (highest bid and lowest ask). Suppl. Román Decl. ¶ 4 (Ex. 1027).
`
`Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an unpatentable abstract idea. Mayo, 132 S.Ct.
`
`at 1293; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (unpatentable mental process performed with aid of pen and paper).
`
`1.
`
`TT cannot avoid the abstract idea by arguing its claims
`recite a GUI improvement
`
`TT argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they
`
`are directed to a GUI improvement rather than a trading strategy, trading on a GUI
`
`in the abstract, or a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice.
`
`POR at 37-41. TT merely fashions straw men to knock them down. TD Ameritrade
`
`did not allege, and the Board did not find, that the claims are directed to a
`
`fundamental economic practice, trading on a GUI in the abstract, or a trading
`
`strategy. Inst. Dec. at 13-16; Pet. at 11-15. Rather, the Board correctly found that
`
`the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “placing an order based on observed
`
`market information, as well as updating the market information.” Inst. Dec. at 14.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`While it might be possible to claim a GUI improvement that is not directed
`
`
`
`to an abstract idea, TT has not done so here. Claim 1 does not recite how to receive
`
`the bid and the ask from the electronic exchange, how to display those two data
`
`points, how to re-plot or move them relative to the price axis when updated data is
`
`received, how to select a price, or how to send the order with a default quantity. It
`
`does not recite a specific GUI or a problem specifically arising in computers. It
`
`simply says to display it on a computer. This is not enough. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at
`
`2359 (“simply instruct[ing] the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
`
`generic computer” does not confer patent eligibility).
`
`2.
`TT’s claims use many words, but recite little substance
`Like the claims in Ultramercial, which took eleven steps to recite the
`
`abstract idea of advertising as currency, the claims here break down the abstract
`
`idea into bite-size components. Compare Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 712 (claim 1)
`
`with ’411 Patent at claim 1 (Ex. 1001). But as in Ultramercial, breaking down the
`
`abstract idea here into small, albeit verbose, steps does not confer patent eligibility.
`
`Specifically, TT accuses TD Ameritrade of “ignor[ing] the substantive
`
`elements of the body of the claims . . . which set forth detailed requirements for the
`
`structural and functional features of the claimed GUI tool.” POR at 17-19. But
`
`prolixity does not imply patent eligibility, and TT’s blacked-out words add nothing
`
`significant to the § 101 analysis. Despite a significant word count, TT’s claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`read on
`
`
`
`
`plotting juust two datta points allong an axiis, updatin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBBM2014-000133
`U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 7,6766,411
`g those datta points a
`
`s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the market changees, and seleecting an oorder price..
`
`
`
`
`
`FFor examplle, TT arguues that TDD Ameritraade ignoredd the blackked-out
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`languagge of the reeceiving steep:
`
`
`
`POR at 18. But thhe blacked--out portionn does not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`alter that tthis convenntional datta-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`gatherinng step reqquires nothiing more thhan receivving two daata points.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`That thesee two
`
`
`
`data poiints, the highest bid aand lowestt offer, are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`called an ““inside maarket” addss no
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patentabble weight, but is meerely standaard nomennclature. Suuppl. Romáán Decl. ¶
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`half-dozenn displayinng
`
`
`
`TTT also blaacks outs a substantiaal portion oof the next
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`steps. BBut despite their verboosity, thesee six lengthhy steps mmerely requuire displayying
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and upddating the hhighest bidd and lowesst offer, wiithout recitting any paarticularityy on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`how thaat must be done. For example, tthe first twwo steps meerely requirre a regionn for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`displayiing the higghest bid annd lowest aask:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`POR at 18 (followwed by a suubstantiallyy identical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`step for thhe ask). Thhe next fourr
`
`
`
`steps pl
`
`
`
`
`ot the currrent values of these twwo data pooints on thee region. F
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`irst the currrent
`
`highest
`
`
`bid is dispplayed:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CBBM2014-000133
`U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 7,6766,411
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. Wheen new data is receiveed, the bidd is updatedd by movinng it to whhere it belonngs:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4; see alsoo TSE at 00107
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. The claims reppeat these ttwo steps aagain for thhe lowest aask. Id. Theese six
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`displayiing steps reecite nothinng new. Suuppl. Rommán Decl. ¶
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(prior-aart electronnic plot of bbids and offfers alongg price axiss) (Ex. 10007); Silvermman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at FIG. 4 (prior-arrt paper ploot of same)) (Ex. 10033). Becaus
`
`
`
`
`
`e a person
`
`could
`
`
`
`mentallyy visualizee the data aas recited inn these dissplay stepss or performm them witth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pen-andd-paper, theey are an uunpatentable mental pprocess. CyCyberSourcce, 654 F.3dd at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1372.
`
`
`
`TTT’s compllaint that TTD Ameritrrade overggeneralizedd these dispplay steps iis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`particullarly misplaced, givenn that TT iitself arguees that “[t]hhere is no mmaterial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`differennce between the claimms of the ’1132 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and the ’4411 patent
`
`for the
`
`
`
`purposees of 35 U.S.C. § 1011.” POR at 2. The ’1332 patent reeplaces alll six of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aforemeentioned diisplay stepps with a si
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent NNo. 6,772,1132 at claimm 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ngle “disp
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`laying marrket depth”” step. U.SS.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CBBM2014-000133
`U.S. Pat.
`
`No. 7,6766,411
`
`
`
`TTT also blaacks out moost of the wwords in thhe steps forr acceptingg and sendiing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`an orderr:
`
`
`
`POR at 18. The reedacted porrtions do nnot change
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that these
`
`
`
`steps recitte the
`
`
`
`
`
`conventtional stepss of acceptting a user’’s input forr price in aa data-inpuut region annd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sendingg the order with a deffault quantiity.
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 did not soolve any GGUI probleems
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`TTT argues tthat its claiims are nott directed tto an abstraact idea beecause theyy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`recite a solution too a problemm. Specificcally, TT c
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`traders wwere frustrrated with prior-art ddynamic prrice axis di
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ontends——without evvidence—tthat
`
`
`
`splays beccause the prrice
`
`
`
`
`
`would cchange undder the userr’s mouse jjust as the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`user was sselecting itt. POR at 66-17,
`
`
`
`39. TT’s alleged ssolution is using a priior-art statiic price axxis display
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Suppl. RRomán Decl., ¶ 5; TSSE at 0107 (static priice axis on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`instead.
`
`
`
`electronicc display).
`
`
`
`BBut generallly recitingg the use off a static prrice axis (aassuming aarguendo thhat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ’4111 patent reqquires one)) does not impart pattentability
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`because thhe idea of nnot
`
`
`
`
`
`movingg a price axxis is an unnpatentablee abstract iddea itself. PPlotting daata along aa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`static prrice axis caan be donee mentally oor with thee aid of penn-and-papeer, especiaally
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`when the claims require only two data points (highest bid and lowest ask). Further,
`
`
`
`a static price axis is a well-known conventional feature in both paper and electronic
`
`displays for such data. Suppl. Román Decl., ¶ 6; TSE at 0107 (electronic static
`
`price axis); Silverman at FIG. 4 (paper static price axis).
`
`In addition, TT’s contentions on this point are merely unsupported attorney
`
`argument and entitled to no weight. TT relies on Brumfield’s trial testimony
`
`directly and indirectly through its cites to Mr. Thomas’s testimony that merely
`
`recounts Mr. Brumfield’s trial testimony. POR at 6-17 (citing Ex. 2011,
`
`Brumfield’s trial testimony and Ex. 2201 at ¶¶ 31 and 33, Thomas’s testimony). As
`
`the Board has already recognized, attorney argument relying on Mr. Brumfield’s
`
`testimony is entitled to no weight because TT refused to make him available for
`
`deposition, and the Board ordered it expunged. Order at 2-3 (Paper 41, May 15,
`
`2015). Likewise, Mr. Thomas’s recounting of that same Brumfield testimony
`
`should be given no weight. TT also relies on a demonstrative from a court
`
`proceeding that is entitled to no weight. POR at 6-17 (citing Ex. 2202, “101
`
`Hearing Presentation”). The cited slide, titled “Inventor’s Problem with
`
`Conventional Screens,” is merely attorney argument illustrating the subject matter
`
`of the expunged Brumfield testimony. POR at 7 (citing Ex. 2202 at PTX 6045).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite only insignificant post-
`solution activity and data gathering (Step 2)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`TT has not proffered any persuasive evidence contradicting the Board’s
`
`preliminary conclusion that “claim 1 does not recite additional elements or
`
`combinations of elements that add significantly more to the abstract idea so as to
`
`claim patent-eligible subject matter.” Inst. Dec. at 15. The steps, alone or in
`
`combination, require nothing more than implementing the abstract idea using well
`
`known components (a generic computer), limiting the abstract idea to a particular
`
`field of use (trading financial products), or adding insignificant extra-solution
`
`activities (data gathering, sending orders, and arranging data), thus “add[ing]
`
`nothing of practical significance to the underlying abstract idea.” Ultramercial v.
`
`Hulu, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`TT argues that “[e]xisting computers are the canvas on which the improved
`
`GUI technology is created,” contending that its patent “describes its invention as
`
`an improvement to prior GUIs.” POR at 26-27; 41-43 (emphasis added). TT goes
`
`astray here because it impermissibly seeks to avoid the Supreme Court’s mandate
`
`to look for an inventive concept, and because TT does not look at the claims. TD
`
`Ameritrade does not contend that improved GUIs or software cannot be eligible for
`
`patenting, but that these claims are unpatentable because they amount to nothing
`
`significantly more than a patent upon the abstract idea itself.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`TT also tries to salvage claim 1 by drawing analogies to a stapler and a
`
`
`
`cockpit display. POR at 26-27, 53. TT contends that finding claim 1 ineligible is
`
`akin to finding that “a stapler is ineligible because it is made of steel, a known
`
`material, and uses known components.” POR at 27. But a claim covering a new
`
`stapler would be patent-ineligible like claim 1 here, if it was drafted at a high level
`
`of generality, covering the abstract idea of fastening two pieces of paper together
`
`with a small metal ribbon and nothing significantly more. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d
`
`at 715-16. Likewise, claims directed to a cockpit display would be ineligible if they
`
`merely recited using a generic computer to display airspeed next to altitude.
`
`Unlike TT, TD Ameritrade proffered evidence—rather than mere attorney
`
`argument—showing that TT’s claim elements, alone or in combination, did not
`
`recite an inventive concept. Pet. at 15 (referring to the later sections, which
`
`discussed the prior art and other evidence). Further, TT’s patent explains that the
`
`system can be implemented “on any existing or future terminal or device,” using
`
`known input devices such as a mouse. Inst. Dec. at 15 (citing ’411 patent at 4:8-
`
`11). The patent also explains that the mapping of the market data to the screen can
`
`be performed using any known technique, and that the present invention is not
`
`limited to any particular display device or method. Id. (citing ’411 patent at 4:11-
`
`12, 5:1-5).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`TT also argues that TD Ameritrade failed to address the claim steps as a
`
`
`
`combination. POR at 19. Not true. In its Petition, TD Ameritrade referred to the
`
`two separate proposed combinations of prior art, supported by extensive
`
`testimonial and documentary evidence, as showing that the claims recite nothing
`
`beyond the abstract idea that could bring them within the realm of patentable
`
`subject matter. Pet. at 11-15. Although TD Ameritrade did not meet its burden to
`
`show that the proposed combinations taught the single-action order entry for
`
`obviousness purposes, there is no dispute that single-action order entry was well-
`
`known, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., POPR at 8 (discussing conventional
`
`GUIs with a preset default value and single-action order entry); Thomas Rep. at ¶
`
`20 (conventional to have “single action order entry that consisted of a trader pre-
`
`setting a default quantity and then clicking” to send the order) (Ex. 2201). The
`
`motivation for including single-action ordering on any display is to reduce the
`
`amount of time it takes to place an order in a fast-moving market. Suppl. Román
`
`Decl. ¶ 9.
`
`C. The claims preempt the abstract idea despite any alleged non-
`infringing alternatives
`TT seeks to avoid Alice altogether by asserting that there is no preemption
`
`concern, relying on guidance provided to examiners. POR at 29-36 (citing 79 Fed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`Reg. 74618, 746[2]5 (Dec. 16, 2014)). In support of its preemption argument, TT
`
`
`
`offers four allegedly non-infringing alternatives.
`
`As an initial matter, under the guidance TT cites―guidance that does not
`
`apply to the Board―the Alice test may be skipped only if patent eligibility is “self-
`
`evident.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 74625. For example, the patent eligibility of a “complex
`
`manufactured industrial product,” such as a “robotic arm assembly having a
`
`control system that operates using certain mathematical relationships,” is
`
`considered self-evident. Id. The ’411 patent does not claim a complex
`
`manufactured product. It claims displaying information, updating it, and accepting
`
`orders to trade commodities. TT cannot avoid Alice.
`
`TT also misconstrues the law regarding preemption. The existence of non-
`
`infringing alternatives does not per se render a claim patentable. For example, a
`
`field-of-use restriction opens up an entire universe of non-infringing ways to
`
`practice an abstract idea, but that is not enough to confer patent eligibility. Mayo,
`
`132 S.Ct. at 1300-01. Likewise, adding insignificant post-solution claim steps to an
`
`abstract idea may open up non-infringing alternatives, but that does not confer
`
`patent eligibility. Id. And assuming arguendo that the four alternatives do not
`
`infringe, TT did not show that they are not merely missing such insignificant post-
`
`solution activity. In fact, the Board should give no weight to TT’s noninfringing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`alternatives assertions because TT proffers only attorney argument, not evidence,
`
`
`
`supporting its factual assertions that these products do not infringe.
`
`TT’s preemption arguments ring especially hollow because TT has stretched
`
`the definition of a static price axis to encompass the idea of any momentary pause.
`
`For example, TT contends that a momentary and localized “price hold” caused by
`
`hovering a mouse over a price infringes the ’132 patent. Trading Techs. v. CQG,
`
`No. 1:05-04811 (N.D. Ill Apr. 15, 2015), TT Mot. for JMOL of Indirect
`
`Infringement at 6-7 (Ex. 1028); Trading Techs. v. CQG, Inc., et al., No.1:05-cv-
`
`04811 (N.D. Ill), CQG Tr. at 20-24 (Ex. 1029) (TT’s expert, Mr. Thomas,
`
`testifying that hover mode infringes TT’s static price axis patents); Trading Techs.
`
`v. CQG, No.1:05-cv-04811 (N.D. Ill), TT’s Motion for JMOL at 8-9 (Ex. 1030)
`
`(price hold while hovering is equivalent to TT’s static price axis). Even further,
`
`TT’s expert testified under oath that flashing a light before automatically re-
`
`centering infringes the static price axis element because it warns the user to abstain
`
`from trading. Thomas eSpeed Tr. at 51-52 (Ex. 1033).
`
`D. Overcoming computer problems does not necessarily confer
`patent eligibility
`Relying primarily on DDR Holdings, TT argues that its claims must be
`
`patent eligible because they are “necessarily rooted in computer technology” and
`
`solve a problem specifically arising in computers. POR at 43-50. TT’s reliance on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`CBM2014-00133
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,676,411
`DDR Holdings is misguided. DDR Holdings does not stand for the broad
`
`
`
`proposition that claims solving computer problems are necessarily patent-eligible.
`
`Indeed, claims for converting binary-coded decimal to binary―as distinctly a
`
`computer-rooted problem as any―are not patent eligible. Benson, 409 U.S. at 71.
`
`The DDR Holdings court carefully limited its opinion to the claims before it,
`
`cautioning “that